Religion can have quite a powerful hold on the mind.

and moral without the Church. I realized years ago that man made rules aren't always right and correct, and I didn't have to blindly follow. Teach your children the right thing to do and worship together. Good luck!

I don't go there anymore

If X (Being Catholic) necessarily entails Y (Going to Church), then people most strongly identifying as X (Catholic) might not buy into that "spiritual but not religious" malarky. As long as we're tossing out anecdotal examples, I know plenty of people digusted by the Church's behavior yet no loss willing to show up for Church to toss money into the collection plate.

Many religionists are indoctrinated from birth on acceptance of the authority of the church. They brainwash their adherents into the righteousness of their cause. Any use of their institutions for nefarious purposes is dismissed as the work of the "deceiver". As such the answer to their problems isn't more external regulation, it's more of the same which got them there in the first place.

Someone has admitted he wants posts about the RCC sexual abuse crisis to stop, and he'll keep posting #whataboutism bullshit until he gets his way.

Those who dare to speak of the ills of the RCC were personally attacked. In all of these instances the common thread is indoctrination from their earliest days. That's when you realize how deeply the culture of corruption goes. It all starts with the firmly held "belief" that the institution is incapable of wrongdoing and everything bad is the result of demonic influences and easily excused as "human nature".

from this decades-old or even centuries-old problem of sexual abuse by religious leaders. Those who engage in such diversions are part of the reason such things have continued to occur and be covered up by church hierarchy for so long.

Now that prominent RCC officials are being sentenced to prison for their misdeeds, it is becoming harder and harder to distract people's attention. However, there are those who continue to try, for whatever reason, to limit the discussion and revelation of child sexual abuse and sexual abuse of women by such religious organizations.

It's important to keep these stories available and in front of people's eyes. The safety of future victims depends on broader awareness of the problem.

Those who try such apologist tactics should probably realize their efforts are counterproductive.

It's force of habit, I think, or a desperation move at this point.

but a lack of saying tolerance is human. The negative aspects are all just human traits, it's human nature to do those things, which is why we need religion because it teaches us to be better than just subject to human nature. With religion we can suppress those nasty intolerance and hateful human traits. Of course people in religions still act that way from time to time because they are only human...

The best part is when the indoctrination prescribes the intolerance you can just retreat to the "human nature" position, as if the person would have been intolerant anyway.

When someone points out the intolerance of those who are in a religious group who adhere to those intolerant indoctrination, then it's whatabout those intolerant Chinese atheists.

motte and bailey, thanks to Trotsky.

If you call out the underhanded bullshit, then you obviously just don't care about oppressed minority ethic populations.

Remember to always claim the moral high ground, especially when your behavior is morally indefensible.

Except this is where that privilege is being called out, so it's a lot of flailing and self.contridicting.

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. What about that?

That's nothing to the facebook groups out there

It's really a whole separate sort of evil, if anything these children are "tolerated" all too well, and their abusers are also tolerated.

Is this bait and switch? The RCC commits Crime A, but let's talk about Crime B committed by a different group.

What about China?

Child rape? No, it's just intolerance, everybody does that.

It's human nature, theists are only human so they are subject to human failings. Bringing up China randomly to say "What about what they are doing to muslims there?" is whataboutism. he's all over the place with these things.

All this scandal casts into grave doubt the idea that this is God's church and those within it have a special calling to obey Him.

It has always been those things. "God" is just the supposed authority that lends gravitas to those efforts.

to analyze this matter and bring it to the forefront. The Atlantic is a respected publication. What we're beginning to see is mainstream sources asking the hard questions and covering the RCC's attempts to gloss over the problem.

It's important to note that these aren't unfiltered websites that open their pages to just anyone, like some we often see excerpts from. These publications are influential, carefully edited and vetted, and far more reliable than the typical slanted religious news websites.

It's good to see, and I hope to see more such articles.

...arguing as to why the RCC shouldn't be held responsible for their culture of child rape.

There is no excuse possible. Sexually abusing children is a heinous, terrible thing to do. Period. When religious leaders do it, they deserve even more disgust from everyone, since they're supposed to be a source of comfort, instruction and representation of their deity. Those added insults to the acts make them even more reprehensible. And then, when the official religious organization is complicit in hiding those sexual assaults, it compounds the harm being done and actually encourages more abuse.

Whataboutism does nothing to ameliorate the damage this has caused and is causing. It's just a disgusting attempt at minimizing that.

Why would one do such a thing in defense of the indefensible?

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2019, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

It's so sad to read the various reports of learning the priest who married them has been revealed as an abuser, or the priest in the children's school or the priest who officiated at their mother's funeral

It's a very enlightening source of info about the pain many Catholic families are dealing with

Let's not lose sight of the REAL tragedy here - now the memory of someone's wedding will forever be tainted!

And now, the image of a defrocked priest is stuck in my brain. NOOOOOO......

always a good answer. They have problems also.

I was one that was abused in the Catholic Church. When we had children, we chose to take them to another (Methodist) church for a while. Eventually we did what we should have done in the beginning and that is just to not go.

One of the big reasons we even went to any church is just to help them understand religious references in society. We soon realized we had more than enough resources to answer any questions for them.

I felt much better about not supporting any church than to simply go along and go to church.

The hierarchical nature of most churches, and the associated need to see clergy as "better" than the rest of us, lends itself well toward the perpetuation of abuse and coverup. This is what makes it particularly bad in the RCC, but those elements are quite common in other religions as well.

Many people claim that their church is still holy. That the priests in their parish are good men. It's those other churches where bad things happen. But like posted above, it comes as a shock to discover that the priest who married you and buried your mother was one of them.

They kid themselves into believing that because their church is still innocent, then religion is still pure and that God shouldn't be blamed for the transgressions of men.

So regardless through their donations they are still contributing to the problem of covering up child rape. One would expect this entitles them to revolt against the practice, yet no such revolt has been realized. If they are blind to the corruption in the larger organization, it's not hard to imagine how they would be blind to it in their own back yard.

They are still backing an international criminal organization. If they had any true morals, they would either be "raising hell" about everything, or they would leave.

We would look at any other person involved in a criminal organization as an actual criminal no matter what his role was - even someone who was just a driver. Why should the church get a pass.

TlalocW

Until the Catholic Church is willing to ordain women, not much will change. Perhaps you've noticed that the Pope has not issued an encyclical about the ordination of women. Perhaps you've noticed that female sexuality is viewed as something sinful. Stop giving them money!

If ever. A male priesthood is pretty much set in stone in RCC doctrine. Ever since Paul forbade women from speaking in church, the die has been cast. Unless an undiscovered original copy of that letter appears, the canon will stand and women will be relegated to a servant's role in that church.

Paul, the Roman, is the center of that church, with Jesus as a featured, but secondary player in doctrinal issues.

The Bible says whatever the Church wants it to say. They've changed doctrine before, they can change again if the pain gets bad enough.

to support their lack of desire. That's where old Paul comes in. I mean, this is the church that won't allow gluten-free altar bread for the eucharist, because "bread" must be made of wheaten flour. It's a silly doctrinal rule, but it remains the rule. I once argued for some time with one 'rug' here about that doctrine, which he defended with whataboutisms and personal attacks.

Now, of course, I don't really care about the constitution of the host bread. I was merely arguing about useless, outdated doctrine that doesn't even have scriptural support. But, defending the doctrine was very important it seems. There's a lot of that going on.

Another favorite of mine are discussions of transubstantiation where the question of whether the eucharist involves a metaphorical or a literal conversion of the bread and wine to flesh and blood or not is involved. Nobody seems to want to talk about that crucial issue any longer in this group.

I would also enjoy a nice chat about predestination, a hallmark of Calvinism and Presbyterianism, but there appear to be no takers for such discussions any longer here.

A great pity, that...

Am I destined for Hades, do you think?

I take a certain pride in handling eggs with just one hand. It impresses the uninitiated cooks standing around.

or the Lord will smite you with cholesterol, afflict you with indigestion and cause your souffles to fall in their pans.

Nor my pan-scrambled eggs primavera campobello. Ha! I scoff at your warnings!

They've just gotten "more correct."

has previously decreed to be doctrine “ex cathedra”. The infallibility trap deliberately locked the church into its highly conservative positions.

So they can always come up with something else new. They've been pretty clever about this over the millenia.

informally part of doctrine for centuries. 1870 made it official.

But the pint remains that it licks doctrine in place. Are there loopholes? Of course.

can say that fallible humans have misunderstood the previous infallible pope.

No, that's Methodists.

And as pints lick doctrine, when the RCC decides to change, they should hold the meeting in a pub.

Position (real or imagined) where it can dictate morality to the rest of us.

Realize the Bible is incredibly immoral and written by flawed men under the guise that it came from a god.
Ask yourself, "Would you use the same dental advances that Bronze-age goat-herders use?" If not, why use their morality?
Leave the church.
Become a humanist.
Be happy.

TlalocW

The Council was convened primarily to resolve 3 questions. 1. When should Easter be celebrated. They decided that easter should be celebrated on the 1st Sunday after the 21at of March. 2. What the the relationship between God and Jesus. They invented the 3 in 1 Trinity, and anyone, who refused to accept this doctrine (the gnostics e.g.) was labeled a heretic and exiled. 3. What should be included in canon (Church) law? A lot of the old Roman pagan law was grandfathered in. For example, the office of the Pontiff of Rome had been the Pontifex Maximus or pontifex maximus (Latin, "greatest priest&quot was the chief high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome.

Constantine himself worshipped Apollo the sun god. He saw Jesus as the son of Apollo. The RCC is a corrupt institution. It has always been a corrupt institution for the elite patricians. It exists to amass wealth and separate people from their money. If this post offends anyone, I'm sorry. But it's time for people start using their brains, reason, and logic. Maybe even read some history books.

I grew up in the Church. I'm constantly torn between being angry at the congregation for being so deferential with the clergy, and feeling sorry for them because that's exactly what they were brought up to do.

Going to church doesn’t make you Christian any more than being in a garage makes you a car. I was raised catholic, no chance I would ever go back. Most “ Christians” I know, do not seem to have read the same bible I did, nor do they have the same comprehension of it as I do.

who interprets the Bible differently than you that they're doing it wrong?

They think they're Christians, even if you don't agree. How do we convince them that your idea of Christianity is the right one?

Your actions are what makes you something or not. Words are meaningless without action.

They favor things they know will hurt them because they get off on the fact that it hurts liberals. You can’t fix that level of stupid. They hold no allegiance to America. Most of these people never served, most likely no one in their family has.